Procedimiento de liquidación

The singular process of urbanisation in Latin America has been accompanied by the concentration of the growth in specific areas, which has produced the rise of large cities and mega-cities. 4

A simple observation of the Latin American system of cities (see Figure 3.6) helps to visualise the coastal location of the largest cities and the enormous weight of primate and large cities, unseen in other areas of the world. If these trends were already visible in the urban system of 1900 (Figure 3.2), the urbanisation and concentration processes during the 20th _{century have} confirmed and reinforced them.

Figure 3.6. The Latin American urban system in 1990 (Source: Gilbert, 1994).

Ades and Glaeser’s (1995) study on urban giants showed that countries in the Latin American region have main cities that are 40% larger than those of other world regions. Latin America accounted in 2001 with two cities of more than 18 million inhabitants (São Paulo and Mexico City) and five mega cities of more than eight million. 49 Latin American cities had more than a million inhabitants at the turn of the century, which housed 43% of its urban population (ECLAC, 2000), confirming the preference of Latin Americans to concentrate in large cities.

Concentration is an important topic in the spatial disciplines and, therefore, there is an extended literature that addresses the reasons that explain spatial concentration in large cities. The capitalist system’s spatial dynamics favours central locations because far away locations imply higher costs to overcome distance constraints. In developing countries central locations seem to have even more advantages due to the existing infrastructural shortages and higher costs of transportation. Gilbert (1982) divides the causes of concentration into two main categories: those linked to an economic organisation with a strong export orientation, and those associated

10 million + 5 to 10 million 2.5 to 5 million 0.75 to 2.5 million

with the inward-oriented industrialisation. In other words, trade and industrial activities are accounted for the concentration in cities. However, political matters also influence concentration and for some scholars for a large part.

Throughout history, trade has been the traditional activity promoting urban growth. In the Third World, it was the growth of international trade which promoted the growth of the first large and primate cities, generally port cities. These generally controlled the flow of exports, the revenues from these exports and the import of goods financed by the export flows. The critical factor in the domination of the primate cities over the provincial cities was, however, the control over the revenues of international trade by the state bureaucracy and private interests (Gilbert, 1982). In some countries, this has lead to the development of more than one city, as for example in Brazil. In Colombia, the lack of a dominant port led to the development of four competitive cities. There are other trade-related variables that have been linked to concentration in cities, which are not export, but inward oriented. When there is protectionism for domestic industries, prices are lower in the central city because firms are located there. Workers come then to the city to pay lower prices for domestic goods. This protectionism-related concentration has been suggested in the growth of Mexico City (Ades and Glaeser, 1995), but may be also be valid for other Latin American capital cities, which had protectionist policies during their period of industrial expansion. 5

The analysis of Alonso-Villar (2000) suggests that large metropolises in the Third world are not only the result of protective trade policies, but also the consequence of the relative position of a country, in terms of industrialisation, with respect to the rest of the world. Industrialisation has indeed more straightforward consequences for the concentration of people than trade. Industrial development has occurred more rapidly in the largest cities and at the same time encouraged urban primacy and concentration. Because of this, concentration can be viewed as both cause and effect of industrialisation. This self-reinforcing process of agglomeration occurs because, on the one hand, the best location for a firm is the one with easy access to its market. On the other hand, the best location for workers is the one with easy access to goods. São Paulo and Mexico City are good examples of the presence of this self-reinforcing economic process in the formation of giant cities. Inspired by the case of Mexico, Krugman and Livas (1999) explain the existence of giant cities as a consequence of the strong forward and backward linkages that arise when manufacturing tries to serve a small domestic market. Their model implies that these linkages are much weaker when the economy is open to international trade. This suggests that the giant Third World metropolis is an unintended by-product of import- substitution policies, and will tend to shrink as developing countries liberalise.

Recent research in the field has been useful for understanding how the balance between agglomeration and dispersion forces relates to microeconomic conditions. Both self- agglomeration trends and the hub-effect of transport nodes6 _{contribute to concentration in large} cities. Therefore, large cities and port cities are more attractive to firms. When industrial growth is limited, as it is the case in Latin America, the location of the government can be considered as a main source of urban concentration too. This is because spatial proximity to power increases political influence, so firms prefer to locate near the government. 7 _{The cities which concentrate} a large market, a port and the seat of the government are then the most attractive for economic activities.

These explanations, however, are exclusively linked to the political economy and underestimate socio-cultural factors. The fact that large cities are the locations which concentrate educational, cultural, health, communication and recreational facilities is also a good reason to migrate to them. Most newcomers do not find a formal job in the city but they get access to services that

were not accessible in their home town. Another common reason to migrate to the large cities in Latin America has been to escape from political violence in the place of origin. Finally, an important drive toward urban concentration comes from the generalised vision of the city as a place of modernity and progress.

According to the periodisation of the Latin American urban system, three successive attraction factors explaining concentration in large cities can be identified:

• An initial concentration in cities that were seat of political power during the colonial rule, as in Lima, Mexico City and Salvador (later replaced by Rio de Janeiro);

• After independence, a phase of city growth linked to international trade. São Paulo grew on the basis of coffee trade, Buenos Aires on mutton, wool and cereals (Gilbert, 1982). Buenos Aires grew during a period of heavy trade expansion, when the city was a world centre for international movements of goods and capital, and immigration;

• Industry-related growth, during the post-war import-substitution period, coinciding with the demographic explosion.

Along these successive stages, the traditional urban primacy8 _{of most of the capital cities has} acquired new dimensions. However, it is important to note that not all countries have a high primacy rate. The ones that have historically enjoyed a more balanced urban system (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador) share a common feature: the capital cities do not coincide with the port city. The location of the main port(s) and the appropriation of their revenues seem of essential importance to explain urban primacy in Latin America. In Brazil most of the large cities are located on the coastline of its vast territory, which favoured competition among them. Location near the sea seems to have promoted the growth of cities as Barranquilla and Cali9 _{in Colombia, and Guayaquil in Ecuador.}